Director General Esic Headquarter & Ors. Vs Anil Kumar Kalra & Ors.

$~90 to 92

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

- W.P.(C) 203/2008

UOI THR. SECRETARY MINISTRY OF HEALTH & FAMILY WELFARE .....Petitioner Through: Ms. Prema Priyadarshini, Mr. Priyansh Kanwar and Mr. Vikas Roy, Advocates

¶5

versus

¶6

CHAHAT RAM & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Ranbir Yadav, Advocate

¶7

W.P.(C) 1821/2008, CM APPL. 3508/2008 & 3510/2008 U.O.I & ORS .....Petitioners Through: Mr. Jivesh Kumar Tiwari, CGSC with Ms. Nandini Aggarwal and Ms. Samiksha, Advocates

¶8

versus

¶9

ASHOK KUMAR & ORS .....Respondents Through: Mr. Ranbir Yadav, Advocate

¶10

- W.P.(C) 9512/2009

¶11

DIRECTOR GENERAL ESIC HEADQUARTER & ORS .....Petitioners Through: Mr. Jivesh Kumar Tiwari, CGSC with Ms. Nandini Aggarwal and Ms. Samiksha, Advocates

¶12

versus

¶13

ANIL KUMAR KALRA & ORS .....Respondents Through: Mr. Ranbir Yadav, Advocate Mr. Sudarshan Rajan, Advocate

¶14

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:AJITW.P.(C) 203/2008 & connected matters KUMAR Signing Da te:2 8.04.2026 18:18:11

¶15

Page 1 of 6

¶16

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. HARI SHANKAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE OM PRAKASH SHUKLA

¶17

%

¶18

JUDGMENT (ORAL) 23.04.2026

¶19

C. HARI SHANKAR, J.

¶20

1. These three writ petitions assail orders passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal¹ whereby the respondents, who were Laboratory Assistants in various hospitals were held to be entitled to the pay scale of ₹ 4000-6000 with effect from 1 January 1996.

¶21

2. In similar writ petitions, being WP (C) Nos. 3136/2006² , 4377/2007³ and 4668/2008⁴ , at the instance of the Union of India, orders passed by the Tribunal were complied with by the petitioners even while the present writ petitions were pending before this Court.

¶22

3. WP (C) Nos. 3136/2006, 4377/2007 and 4668/2008 were disposed of by a Coordinate Bench of this Court by the following order dated 2 February 2026:

¶23

“1. Learned counsel representing the Petitioners submits that in compliance of the order passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, the Respondents who were working as Laboratory Assistants have been granted revised pay scale of' ₹4,000-6,000, with effect from 01.01.1996, as per recommendations of Vth Central Pay Commission and the Respondents have already demitted office after attaining the age of superannuation.

¶24

They submit that while leaving the question of law open,

¶25

1 “the Tribunal”, hereinafter

¶26

2 UOI & Ors. v. Kirat Ram & Ors.

¶27

3 UOI & Ors. v. Sanjay Kaushik & Ors.

¶28

4 UOI & Ors. v. V.S. Dahiya & Ors.

¶29

Signature Not Verified

¶30

Digitally Signed By:AJITW.P.(C) 203/2008 & connected matters KUMAR Signing Da te:2 8.04.2026 18:18:11

¶31

Page 2 of 6

¶32

the writ petitions may be disposed of as the Petitioners do not wish to make any recovery from the Respondents.

¶33

Keeping in view the aforesaid position, the present writ petitions along with the pending applications are disposed of while leaving the question of law open.

¶34

A photocopy of the Order passed today be kept in the connected matters.”

¶35

4. Thus, in similar matters, as the Union of India made a statement before this Court that they were not intending to recover the amounts paid to the respondents, this Court disposed of the writ petitions keeping the question of law open.

¶36

5. Another batch of writ petitions, being WP (C) 6414/2015⁵ , 3781/2011⁶ , 18/2015⁷ , 6423/2015⁸ , 8261/2016⁹ , 8264/2016¹⁰ were also disposed of by the following order passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court on 4 February 2026, following the earlier order dated 2 February 2026 in WP (C) 3136/2006 and connected matters:

¶37

“1. Learned counsel representing the Petitioners are at ad idem that these writ petitions may be disposed of in terms of the order dated 02.02.2026, passed by this Court in W.P.(C) 3136/2006 and connected matters.

¶38

Learned counsel representing the Petitioners submit that in compliance of the order passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, the Respondents who were 'working as Laboratory Assistants have been granted revised pay scale of ₹4,000-6,000, with effect from 01.01.1996, as per recommendations of Central Pay Commission and the Respondents have already demitted office after attaining the age of superannuation.

¶39

5 The Director General (ESIC) & Ors. v. Rakesh Saini & Ors.

¶40

6 Director General ESI Head Quarter & Anr. v. Anita Yadav & Ors.

¶41

7 Director General ESI Corporation & Anr. v. Brham Pal & Ors.

¶42

8 The Director General (ESIC) & Ors. v. Kirti Sharma & Ors.

¶43

9 Director General (Employees State Insurance Corporation) & Ors. v. Munish Kumar & Ors.

¶44

10 Director General (Employees State Insurance Corporation) & Ors. v. Dharambir Singh Ranga & Ors.

¶45

Signature Not Verified

¶46

Digitally Signed By:AJITW.P.(C) 203/2008 & connected matters KUMAR Signing Da te:2 8.04.2026 18:18:11

¶47

Page 3 of 6

¶48

They submit that while leaving the question of law open, the writ petitions may be disposed of as the Petitioners do not wish to make any recovery from the Respondents.

¶49

Keeping in view the aforesaid position, the present writ petitions along with the pending applications are disposed of while leaving the question of law open.

¶50

A photocopy of the Order passed today be kept in the connected matters.”

¶51

6. Mr. Sudarshan Rajan, learned counsel for the respondents, submits that while the respondents in the batch of writ petitions headed by WP (C) 3136/2006, which were disposed of on 2 February 2026, were all retired employees, some of the respondents in WP (C) 6414/2015, 3781/2011, 6423/2015, were serving employees.

¶52

7. As such, the statement recorded in para 2 of the order dated 4 February 2026 applies both to serving as well as retired employees.

¶53

8. Mr. Tiwari, learned CGSC, who appears for the UOI, in WP (C) 1821/2008 and 9512/2009, at this point, interjects to submit that the concession, if any, was at the instance of the ESIC and that the Union of India should not be bound by the said concession.

¶54

9. Accepting this submission would result in this Court becoming a party to a clear violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Mr. Tiwari is unable to dispute the position that so far as the aspect of recovery is concerned, there is no difference between the Laboratory Assistants who were working in the ESI hospitals and the Laboratory Assistants who were working in the hospitals under the UOI, all of whom are covered by the aforesaid batch of writ petitions, which were heard together. We cannot, therefore, be party to a

¶55

situation in which no recovery would be made from the Laboratory

¶56

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:AJITW.P.(C) 203/2008 & connected matters KUMAR Signing Da te:2 8.04.2026 18:18:11

¶57

Page 4 of 6

¶58

Assistants of the ESIC hospitals and recovery would still be made from the Laboratory Assistants of hospitals under the UOI.

¶59

10. Earlier, there were some disputes as to whether the respondents in the writ petitions covered by the aforesaid orders dated 2 February 2026 and 4 February 2026 passed by the Coordinate Bench were serving or retired Laboratory Assistants. Subsequently, the petitioners have also confirmed that some of the respondents in WP(C) 6414/2015, 3781/2011, 6423/2015 are in fact serving employees. There is, therefore, no distinction between the serving Laboratory Assistants in WP(C) Nos.6414/2015, 3781/2011, 6423/2015 and respondents in the present case.

¶60

11. They would, therefore, be entitled to equal treatment from the Court.

¶61

12. Besides the payments, of which recovery is being sought, were made to the respondents as far back as between 2006 and 2009 i.e., close to two decades prior to today. Mr. Tiwari points out that undertakings were taken from the respondents, to agree to recoveries in the event that the payments were found to be in excess. However, Ms. Priyadarshini points out that similar undertakings were taken from the respondents in the batch of writ petitions disposed of, by the aforesaid two orders. If, despite these undertakings, in the batch of writ petitions covered by the aforesaid two orders, the Union of India and the ESIC made a statement that they were not intending to effect recoveries and on that basis writ petitions were disposed of, a similar fate must visit these writ petitions.

¶62

Signature Not Verified

¶63

Digitally Signed By:AJITW.P.(C) 203/2008 & connected matters KUMAR Signing Da te:2 8.04.2026 18:18:11

¶64

Page 5 of 6

¶65

13. Accordingly, we bind the petitioners to their undertakings in the aforesaid two batches of writ petitions to the effect that no recoveries would be made from the respondents herein. As no other issue survives for consideration, these writ petitions are also disposed of, leaving the question of law open, in terms similar to the orders passed on 2 February 2026 in WP (C) 3136/2006, 4377/2007 and 4668/2008 and 4 February 2026 in WP (C) 6414/2015, 3781/2011, 18/2015, 6423/2015, 8261/2016, 8264/2016.

¶66

C. HARI SHANKAR, J.

¶67

OM PRAKASH SHUKLA, J.

¶68

APRIL 23, 2026 /yg

¶69

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:AJITW.P.(C) 203/2008 & connected matters KUMAR Signing Da te:2 8.04.2026 18:18:11

¶70

Page 6 of 6

Director General Esic Headquarter & Ors. v. Anil Kumar Kalra & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Director General Esic Headquarter & Ors. v. Anil Kumar Kalra & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jai Singh Vs National Bal Bhavan & Ors.

Dr. Raman Mahindra Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi & Ors.

Krishan Chand Gupta & Anr. Vs Office of the Lt.Governor of Delhi & Ors.

Naresh Khorwal Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi through Its Commissioner & Ors.

Rashtriya Nirbal Uthan Sansthan and Anr. Vs State of N.C.T of Delhi and Ors.

M/S Modern Convent School Vs Yogender Kumar

M/S Kashish Overseas Private Limited Vs Commissioner of Cgst & Anr.

Shweta Sawhney Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi

Narender Paul & Ors. Vs Union of India & Ors.

Union of India and Ors. Vs Rais Ali

Dr. Subhash Chandra Vs Indian Council of Agricultural Research

Gourav Kumar Katara and Anr. Vs Secretary, Department or Personnel and Training and Ors.

Delhi Police through Commissioner of Police Vs Sanjay Tomar

Association of Prasar Bharati Engineering Employees and Anr. Vs Union of India and Ors.